Simon_Jester wrote:To the US, by a reasonable standard of "major," those were no more "major" than the Boer War was to the British. It was all in the papers at the time, it had some impact on the course of British history, but it didn't require a true mass mobilization, and it didn't cause enough casualties on the British side to engrave itself in the national psyche the way that World War One did a decade later.

From the point of view of American history, the indisputable major wars are the Revolution, the Civil War, and the World Wars. The Mexican-American War probably qualifies and that should have been your counter-argument. The Spanish-American War, Korea, Vietnam, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan... none of those were nearly as large in scale.

The Spanish American war qualifies as a major war. It caused the end of a colonial power - the power that even started colonialism - and it was fought on two oceans, major occupations to follow.

The point is that in the American national consciousness, expressions of patriotism simply aren't tied to bad things happening.

Then that is a problem of ignorance. I suppose in the national consciousness the extinction of the native americans also did not happen due to ignorance.

Most of the bad things in American history happened for reasons that had little to do with nationalism, or that are so easily shrugged off by the average citizen as "no one's fault" or "someone else's fault" that they do not make an impact on the collective sense of history.

Again, ignorance.

There are scars from American jingoism, but they mostly aren't located on America, and so they are not remembered in the same way because it's harder to go look at the bomb craters.

Indian reservations must be so hard to look at.

To the casual eye, history looks different in the eyes of someone whose most recent memory of a flag-waving political party didn't end in six years of grinding, annihilating warfare.

The most recent memory should be a ten-year guerilla war due to flag-waving political parties in Iraq. Or is the ignorance still so strong that the US gave them freedom and democracy?

Is that because the US is uncritical and heedless? Partly. I'd argue it's also because the US has different history than Europe, being on an entirely different continent. This results in even basically similar historical events (like a war of imperialism that killed thousands of people, mostly innocent foreigners) getting interpreted differently.

So, ignorance and arrogance. A potent combination.

Do you disagree with me, or are you taking the opportunity to repeat the litany of American crimes?

I get that it's a long litany and should be repeated at every opportunity just in case there's one of the real jingoists lurking around where they might read it. But I want to be clear: are you arguing with me, or with someone else?

Dude, if I wanted to list American crimes this thread would not suffice. What I am arguing with is that not recognizing the acts of the past either takes a combination of wilfull ignorance or just plain "don't care bout them others", which makes it a fascist thing.

With the possible exception of the Mexican-American War, no other war in American history had anything like the same scope relative to the size of the country at the time. I'll admit that the Mexican-American War is a counterexample to "major American wars weren't triggered by American nationalism." But you didn't think to use it- you shot straight to the wars of imperialism that I had tried to exclude in the first place by using the word "major." Because I was actually trying to analyze American culture instead of launching off into the hundredth repetition of the litany of American crimes.

I actually shot straight to colonial wars because they are the very epitome of flag-waving "we can rule them better than themselves" attitudes. The Mexican-American war in part was sold as "our citizens are oppressed by a foreign power" so I wanted to avoid a discussion about the legality of it.

Orders from the General-Governour to shoot every male on sight or invasions in the name of Big Fruit however are quite easy to discuss, so I used them.

Does that mean I can't even talk about American culture in a neutral tone without getting yelled at on behalf of my birth nation? Do I have to insert an extra side-order of contemptuous adjectives into every sentence in which I use the word "United States," just so people don't forget my opinion of the Spanish-American War while I'm trying to figure out why the hell Americans wave flags in ways that Britons apparently don't?

This is getting ridiculous.

No, what is getting ridiculous is your hilarious attempt to justify things that portray American fallen as good clean heroes on the basis of "well, we just do not know about these things" when even the news about the last war were heavily filtered with reports about wrongdoings. So here goes - are Americans just wilfully ignorant about their past or do they not care?

Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance------------A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood------------My LPs

Thanas wrote:Really now? The Spanish-American War, Vietnam etc. had nothing to do with nationalism? Nor did Iraq II?

What did Vietnam have to do with 'nationalism'?

I love the smell of September in the morning. Once we got off at Richmond, walked up to the 'G, and there was no game on. Not one footballer in sight. But that cut grass smell, spring rain...it smelt like victory.

Dynamic. When [Kuznetsov] decided he was going to make a difference, he did it...Like Ovechkin...then you find out - he's with Washington too? You're kidding. - Ron Wilson

Thanas wrote:Really now? The Spanish-American War, Vietnam etc. had nothing to do with nationalism? Nor did Iraq II?

What did Vietnam have to do with 'nationalism'?

Didn't someone from the Rand Corporation state that 70% of the war was about saving face?

As I recall, it was in the Pentagon Papers or something similar.

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."- George Carlin

"People tell me, 'Bill, let it go. The Kennedy assassination was years ago. It was just the assassination of a President and the hijacking of our government by a totalitarian regime — who cares? Just let it go.' I say, 'All right then. That whole Jesus thing? Let it go! It was 2,000 years ago! Who cares?'"- Bill Hicks

Rings a vague bell, although I have a feeling it might have been post Pentagon Papers rather than actually in them...in any case it's a ridiculously trite comment that is, frankly, wrong.

I love the smell of September in the morning. Once we got off at Richmond, walked up to the 'G, and there was no game on. Not one footballer in sight. But that cut grass smell, spring rain...it smelt like victory.

Dynamic. When [Kuznetsov] decided he was going to make a difference, he did it...Like Ovechkin...then you find out - he's with Washington too? You're kidding. - Ron Wilson

Why is it wrong? I am not all that knowledgable about Vietnam, but I was always under the impression that America got stuck in there and took forever to get out because they didn't want to lose face. I'd be interested in hearing what the real story is.

Because US leaders were deeply, deeply reluctant to fight in Vietnam. The story of the US war in Vietnam is of a constant and massive tension between not wanting to get drawn into another Korea - a long, protracted and difficult war in Asia that the US public had no interest or appetite in - and the sincere belief in the domino theory and the need to stand up to the spread of Communism in SEA. Even those who were gung-ho about using military force in Vietnam anticipated (before 64-65) that most of the fighting would be done by SEATO (ie non American) troops, with the US contribution being in the form of logistics, airpower and nuclear weapons.

The closest thing to a face saving exercise was Nixon and Kissinger's withdrawal strategy, in which the stated aim of creating a sustainable Republic of Vietnam was pretty clearly secondary to US disengagement. But even then it's not like Vietnamization was a total sham so it's hard to say it was solely about 'saving face'.

I love the smell of September in the morning. Once we got off at Richmond, walked up to the 'G, and there was no game on. Not one footballer in sight. But that cut grass smell, spring rain...it smelt like victory.

Dynamic. When [Kuznetsov] decided he was going to make a difference, he did it...Like Ovechkin...then you find out - he's with Washington too? You're kidding. - Ron Wilson

Simon_Jester wrote:The Germans appear to be talking small to justify not doing anything.

No. We don't celebrate war because *drumroll* WE FUCKING HATE WAR. The government sends soldiers away to an illegal/unconstitutional occupation to suck the US president's cock. That doesn't mean I have to be grateful for that. Actually, it means that everyone who willfully participates in this deserves to be spat in the face and/or be thrown in prison. The "I was only following orders" defense ended with the Nürnberg trials. Escpecially so when it's a well-payed job they themselves chose. I wonder if people who have to live their whole life in war regions are more scarred from the experience or less than the carreer soldiers that get to leave after a couple of months.

This is pre-WWII. You can sort of tell from the sketch style, from thee way it refers to Japan (Japan in the 1950s was still rebuilding from WWII), the spelling of Tokyo, lots of details. Nothing obvious... except that the upper right hand corner of the page reads "November 1931." --- Simon_Jester

Simon_Jester wrote:The Germans appear to be talking small to justify not doing anything.

No. We don't celebrate war because *drumroll* WE FUCKING HATE WAR. The government sends soldiers away to an illegal/unconstitutional occupation to suck the US president's cock. That doesn't mean I have to be grateful for that. Actually, it means that everyone who willfully participates in this deserves to be spat in the face and/or be thrown in prison. The "I was only following orders" defense ended with the Nürnberg trials. Escpecially so when it's a well-payed job they themselves chose. I wonder if people who have to live their whole life in war regions are more scarred from the experience or less than the carreer soldiers that get to leave after a couple of months.

So, you feel that US soldiers are operating being fully aware that the war is illegal (even though that issue is debated inside the security council). Yet, even though the security council is debating this a US soldier is suppose to have clarity above these people and conclude that the war is illegal. Fascinating. I love the mindset that the subordinates are held to higher standard then their leaders and expected to know more than their leaders. Do you apply this logic to every aspect of your life?

Simon_Jester wrote:The Germans appear to be talking small to justify not doing anything.

No. We don't celebrate war because *drumroll* WE FUCKING HATE WAR. The government sends soldiers away to an illegal/unconstitutional occupation to suck the US president's cock. That doesn't mean I have to be grateful for that. Actually, it means that everyone who willfully participates in this deserves to be spat in the face and/or be thrown in prison. The "I was only following orders" defense ended with the Nürnberg trials. Escpecially so when it's a well-payed job they themselves chose. I wonder if people who have to live their whole life in war regions are more scarred from the experience or less than the carreer soldiers that get to leave after a couple of months.

So, you feel that US soldiers are operating being fully aware that the war is illegal (even though that issue is debated inside the security council). Yet, even though the security council is debating this a US soldier is suppose to have clarity above these people and conclude that the war is illegal. Fascinating. I love the mindset that the subordinates are held to higher standard then their leaders and expected to know more than their leaders. Do you apply this logic to every aspect of your life?

Yeah... that strikes me as odd.

It is one thing to say "I was just following orders" when the orders are to shoot unarmed civilians, load jews into gas chambers, or follow individual orders that are by themselves clearly illegal or that shock the conscience. It is another to follow an order to go to war when the legality of that war is unclear from an international standpoint, when you have been propagandized, when you have legitimate national interest in the war (be it resources, WMDs, Human Rights Violations, or giving shelter to a terrorist faction that attacked out country. Depending on which war we are talking about).

Questions of legality on the strategic map are not and cannot be up to individual soldiers. They are why we have lawyers, diplomats, and the UN. If they are all silent or divided, the water becomes murky and it is up to the nation states and the consciences of the population and government.

Read the rest of the article. Wars of self defense or collective defense are not illegal. Annexation of territory by means of aggressive war is. The question before the international community is not whether war itself is illegal, but whether the circumstances surrounding one of our current wars make said war illegal. That is not something an individual soldier can be held culpable for.

Fuck it. We have lawyers and historians in here, and I am not inclined to trust my knowledge of the history of interpretation and enforcement of this pact other than to say that in practice, it has been worth less than the paper the certified copies have been printed on.

ARTICLE I

The High Contracting Parties solemly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.

ARTICLE II

The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.

Simon_Jester wrote:The Germans appear to be talking small to justify not doing anything.

No. We don't celebrate war because *drumroll* WE FUCKING HATE WAR. The government sends soldiers away to an illegal/unconstitutional occupation to suck the US president's cock. That doesn't mean I have to be grateful for that. Actually, it means that everyone who willfully participates in this deserves to be spat in the face and/or be thrown in prison. The "I was only following orders" defense ended with the Nürnberg trials. Escpecially so when it's a well-payed job they themselves chose. I wonder if people who have to live their whole life in war regions are more scarred from the experience or less than the carreer soldiers that get to leave after a couple of months.

So, you feel that US soldiers are operating being fully aware that the war is illegal (even though that issue is debated inside the security council). Yet, even though the security council is debating this a US soldier is suppose to have clarity above these people and conclude that the war is illegal. Fascinating. I love the mindset that the subordinates are held to higher standard then their leaders and expected to know more than their leaders. Do you apply this logic to every aspect of your life?

OK you fucking idiot:1) Funny how everything is about the US, even when we are in a thread that has "Germany" in the title and when I am answering a post that has "Germany" right there in the quote. 2) I haven't written that it's less illegal for (german) politicians to wage an offensive war. In fact, conspiracy to prepare an offensive war is illegal, too. 3) Everyone has to make their own choices and stand for them. If you volunteer to go to a foreign country to wage war*, than you are a collosal douche-bag in the least. No debate over wether this war or that war is sanctioned by the UN can change that.

* Side note for you mouth-breathing 'Murrrikan: Germany doesn't deploy her soldiers against their will and there are a lot of types of people in the army (and even more so in navy and air force) that simply will never be deployed. So there really is no excuse. If you are a german soldier on a deployment, you have spent years working towards that, you knew exactly what you got into.

This is pre-WWII. You can sort of tell from the sketch style, from thee way it refers to Japan (Japan in the 1950s was still rebuilding from WWII), the spelling of Tokyo, lots of details. Nothing obvious... except that the upper right hand corner of the page reads "November 1931." --- Simon_Jester

Wait, isn't Afghanistan 'legally' self-defence through some interpretation of NATO?

I love the smell of September in the morning. Once we got off at Richmond, walked up to the 'G, and there was no game on. Not one footballer in sight. But that cut grass smell, spring rain...it smelt like victory.

Dynamic. When [Kuznetsov] decided he was going to make a difference, he did it...Like Ovechkin...then you find out - he's with Washington too? You're kidding. - Ron Wilson

Unfortunately, we will most probably never have a definitive answer to that, since federal prosecutors had already refused to investigate the lead-up to the Kosovo war. I am of the opinion that a single (or low number of) person's attack on a nation is not the same as the person's government attacking that nation. I.e. it's not a case-of-defense and thus illegal under german law.

Though the original statement, that people who volunteer to wage an offensive war deserve to be send to prison, isn't affected by that. The notion that this scum should be venerated is vile, to say the least.edit: And just to make this abundantly clear: I do include Chancellor Schröder and Minister Fischer in this.

This is pre-WWII. You can sort of tell from the sketch style, from thee way it refers to Japan (Japan in the 1950s was still rebuilding from WWII), the spelling of Tokyo, lots of details. Nothing obvious... except that the upper right hand corner of the page reads "November 1931." --- Simon_Jester

Skgoa wrote:OK you fucking idiot:1) Funny how everything is about the US, even when we are in a thread that has "Germany" in the title and when I am answering a post that has "Germany" right there in the quote.

You're the one that brought the US into this. Not me. "The government sends soldiers away to an illegal/unconstitutional occupation to suck the US president's cock"

2) I haven't written that it's less illegal for (german) politicians to wage an offensive war. In fact, conspiracy to prepare an offensive war is illegal, too.

I haven't said it was. My point is that when you say "Actually, it means that everyone who willfully participates in this deserves to be spat in the face and/or be thrown in prison." you're failing to address the totality of the situation.

3) Everyone has to make their own choices and stand for them. If you volunteer to go to a foreign country to wage war*, than you are a collosal douche-bag in the least. No debate over wether this war or that war is sanctioned by the UN can change that.

Soldiers volunteer to join. That's the only volunteer point. After that you are legally obligated to follow orders. There is no choice at that point unless you're given an order that is clearly illegal like shooting unarmed civilians.

* Side note for you mouth-breathing 'Murrrikan: Germany doesn't deploy her soldiers against their will and there are a lot of types of people in the army (and even more so in navy and air force) that simply will never be deployed. So there really is no excuse. If you are a german soldier on a deployment, you have spent years working towards that, you knew exactly what you got into.

Side note to you german elitist pig. If your soldiers were given an order...they would follow it against their will or not. Stop living in make believe land. Holding them, or any other soldier accountable for law violations when the fucking security council is debating on the issue is fucking stupid.

Kamakazie Sith wrote:Soldiers volunteer to join. That's the only volunteer point. After that you are legally obligated to follow orders. There is no choice at that point unless you're given an order that is clearly illegal like shooting unarmed civilians.

Wrong. You can refuse to go on foreign commitments. It will obviously hurt your career a lot, but you don't have to go if you don't want to.

Side note to you german elitist pig. If your soldiers were given an order...they would follow it against their will or not. Stop living in make believe land. Holding them, or any other soldier accountable for law violations when the fucking security council is debating on the issue is fucking stupid.

Wrong again. German soldiers not only have the possibility to ignore illegal orders - and waging offensive war is illegal - they have a duty to do such. However, AFAIK, all law suits against the wars in Kosovo and Afghanistan were won by the government side, which makes them legal - even if people like Skgoa are of other opinion.

Article 5 iirc in the NATO charter allows for member nations to come to the aid of an attacked member, which was invoked after 9/11.

That said, it doesn't mean we have to help for ten years, and we should have bogged off after it became obvious that no one knew what the fuck they were doing. That's the sticking point in all this, buffoonery, not legality.

Skgoa wrote:OK you fucking idiot:1) Funny how everything is about the US, even when we are in a thread that has "Germany" in the title and when I am answering a post that has "Germany" right there in the quote.

You're the one that brought the US into this. Not me. "The government sends soldiers away to an illegal/unconstitutional occupation to suck the US president's cock"

Are you really that stupid? Yeah, I'm not even going to read the rest of that post...

This is pre-WWII. You can sort of tell from the sketch style, from thee way it refers to Japan (Japan in the 1950s was still rebuilding from WWII), the spelling of Tokyo, lots of details. Nothing obvious... except that the upper right hand corner of the page reads "November 1931." --- Simon_Jester

Well, considering that the war seems to be portrayed as "US gets stuck due to unproven fear of Communist taking over former allied colonies" I'd say it was based on more of a nationalistic reflex aka "we cannot let those damned commies take over". But if you disagree, fine - I want no argument on this matter especially as it in no way or form impacts my larger point.

Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance------------A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood------------My LPs

Skgoa wrote:Are you really that stupid? Yeah, I'm not even going to read the rest of that post...

You're striking me as really stupid yourself but I chalk it up to you just being very passionate. The soldiers being US or not doesn't actually matter. What matters is the fact that there is debate among the higher levels of leadership. You call the occupation illegal/unconstitutional. However, the security council is in debate over that. So, when you make statements suggesting that all the soldiers who participate deserve to be spat on or thrown in prison you ignore the totality of what is actually going on and is absolutely unreasonable.

D.Turtle wrote:Wrong. You can refuse to go on foreign commitments. It will obviously hurt your career a lot, but you don't have to go if you don't want to.

I think I'll need a bit more than your say so. You're basically telling me that German soldiers can disobey orders and the only consequence will be damage to their career?

Wrong again. German soldiers not only have the possibility to ignore illegal orders - and waging offensive war is illegal - they have a duty to do such. However, AFAIK, all law suits against the wars in Kosovo and Afghanistan were won by the government side, which makes them legal - even if people like Skgoa are of other opinion.

I didn't think I had to specify that the orders would have to be legal. Did your soldiers refuse to deploy to Kosovo or Afghanistan until after the courts decided it was legal?

You're misunderstanding him dude. Soldiers are given a choice regarding overseas deployment. Although it's not regulated in the same way, unofficially the same thing happened in Australia in 1999 before the Timor deployment.

I love the smell of September in the morning. Once we got off at Richmond, walked up to the 'G, and there was no game on. Not one footballer in sight. But that cut grass smell, spring rain...it smelt like victory.

Dynamic. When [Kuznetsov] decided he was going to make a difference, he did it...Like Ovechkin...then you find out - he's with Washington too? You're kidding. - Ron Wilson